or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Will Apple dub the IBM PPC 980 chip the G6?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Will Apple dub the IBM PPC 980 chip the G6?

post #1 of 39
Thread Starter 
What do you think?
You think Im an arrogant [expletive] who thinks hes above the law, and I think youre a slime bucket who gets most of his facts wrong. Steve Jobs
Reply
You think Im an arrogant [expletive] who thinks hes above the law, and I think youre a slime bucket who gets most of his facts wrong. Steve Jobs
Reply
post #2 of 39
I doubt it; if it is released in the next few months and is the chip that comes at .09 process. Otherwise, it sounds like it could be the "G5" for the PowerBook, while a higher clocked 980 would push the Power Macs to "G6". I think they would stick with G5 for the 980-based models.
...we have assumed control
Reply
...we have assumed control
Reply
post #3 of 39
They will never call a 980 a G6. All the 9xx chips belong to the G5 series. If they made a G6 they will change of series : 11XX ...
post #4 of 39
I don't see why not. It is the next generation, and IBM have acknowledged that by calling the design on which it is based the Power5, the 980 is a derivitave of the Power5.

Jumping from the G5 to the G6 in just over a year would show the world that Apple is on the move. Intel moved quickly from the Pentium to the Pentum II. The 980 based machine is clearly going to be a much more compattitive machine thatthe G5. The G5 is intouch buit isn't all conquring. The G6 just might really have that crown.
Wll I have my G5 so I am off to get a life; apart from this post...
Reply
Wll I have my G5 so I am off to get a life; apart from this post...
Reply
post #5 of 39
It is my understanding that the 980 will be based off of the Power 5, not the Power 4 as the 970 is. If this is the case then it is a new generation and warrents the new G number. If the 980 is just an evolution of the 970, then it there is no need for an incramental G rating.
post #6 of 39
The POWER5 core is based on the POWER4 core. Obviously, there are a lot of improvements, but I'm not sure whether they quality as generational.
"...within intervention's distance of the embassy." - CvB

Original music:
The Mayflies - Black earth Americana. Now on iTMS!
Becca Sutlive - Iowa Fried Rock 'n Roll - now on iTMS!
Reply
"...within intervention's distance of the embassy." - CvB

Original music:
The Mayflies - Black earth Americana. Now on iTMS!
Becca Sutlive - Iowa Fried Rock 'n Roll - now on iTMS!
Reply
post #7 of 39
Unfortunately there is little (none) official information on the 980. The name itself implies , however, more than a simple change in manufacturing process and cache upgrade. It suggests that the 980 will be based on the Power5 and include SMT, upgraded cache scheme (faster and larger), maybe an on die memory controller, and other advanced features slated for release with the Power5.

The question is if the 980 is running parallel to the power5's schedule, then IBM may either skip making a 90nm 970, or produce both a 90nm 970 and 980. Adding more power saving features to the 970 at 90nm would make it an ideal portable processor as well as a blade or 1U server processor. For workstations, you can also use this processor, but for higher end workstations the 980 would be the monster.
post #8 of 39
No way. They will call it the G5, or the G5+. Too much marketing has gone into G5 and it is WAY too soon to ditch it for the G6. "Yeah, that G5 chip was good, bit it only lasted for half a year". Besides, the G means generation and the 980 is still Power4 derived, so technically its parent has not undergone a generation increment, so it won't either.

edit: I may be worong in terms of what generation the 980 is a part of, but I doubt that if it is coming in march that it is derived from the Power5.
King Felix
Reply
King Felix
Reply
post #9 of 39
Quote:
Originally posted by Amorph
The POWER5 core is based on the POWER4 core. Obviously, there are a lot of improvements, but I'm not sure whether they quality as generational.

I think the biggest change is SMT and the addition of VMX.
post #10 of 39
Quote:
Originally posted by Outsider
I think the biggest change is SMT and the addition of VMX.

There have been no mention of VMX for the POWER5 yet.
post #11 of 39
Quote:
Originally posted by Zapchud
There have been no mention of VMX for the POWER5 yet.

I meant SIMD unit and assumed it would be VMX. But I do recall there being mention of a SIMD unit. Must do research...
post #12 of 39
Quote:
Originally posted by DHagan4755
What do you think?

I think it depends a lot on what the 980 is (if they dub a chip '980'). If it's a 970, with 1MB L2 cache on 90 nm, it will be G5 still.

I do believe that they'll rename it to G6 if it turns up to be directly derived off the POWER5 as the 970 is derived off the POWER4. It will then have good SMT (which is a major change), more rename registers, more L2 cache, ++, which is enough difference for dubbing it The Next Generation, G6. IBM does it (POWER4 -> POWER5), why shouldn't Apple?
post #13 of 39
Quote:
Originally posted by Outsider
I meant SIMD unit and assumed it would be VMX. But I do recall there being mention of a SIMD unit. Must do research...

IBM has mentioned no SIMD unit for the POWER5, and the die photo shows no SIMD unit either.
post #14 of 39
Quote:
Originally posted by Zapchud
IBM has mentioned no SIMD unit for the POWER5, and the die photo shows no SIMD unit either.

Huh, I guess it was one of those rumors that was taken as fact.

edit: actually after further looking into thye matter, I'm getting my vapor processors mixed up. I may be thinking of the 980 (still vapor).
post #15 of 39
hope they won't cave to the trendy marketing pressure

Airport -> Airport Extreme
Quartz -> Quartz Extreme
G5 -> G5 Extreme
"I do not fear computers. I fear the lack of them" -Isaac Asimov
Reply
"I do not fear computers. I fear the lack of them" -Isaac Asimov
Reply
post #16 of 39
I think Apple has historically jumped a generation when one of three things happened:

1. There was a major architectural change in the processor design. The G4 added Altivec, the G5 added 64 bit support.
2. A generation has gotten a reputation for sloth (the G4)
3. A significant performance enhancement at the same clock speed when similar clock speeds exist (the G3 over the G2).

Since we suspect that the 980 doesn't add anything architecturally, the only way it will be called a G6 IMO is if it is significantly faster clock for clock than the G5, and it has versions running at similar clock speeds. That will allow Apple to differentiate between product lines without confusion.
post #17 of 39
Quote:
Originally posted by Rhumgod
I doubt it; if it is released in the next few months and is the chip that comes at .09 process.

IBM to present info on 90 nm G5 PPC 970 at Feb. 2004 ISSCC meeting.

Original Japanese article & Babelfish translation

So it is going to be a bit longer than a few months before we see 90nm processors from IBM. And further, these 90nm parts will be 970's. What does this say? Perhaps the 3.0GHz processor will be the first on the 90nm process? If that is true, we might not see a 980/G6/whatever for a year+, as the 90nm 970+ would be able to probably scale quit well (at least to 4GHz I woudl imagine).
post #18 of 39
The G3 name applies to the PPC 740, 750, 750cx, 750cxe, and 750fx. It actually applies to more processors but those are the ones that Apple has called G3s.

Likewise, the G4 name is used for any Mac using the 7400, 7410, 7447, 7450, or 7455. I think there are more as well (7441? 7457?), but you get the idea.
post #19 of 39
Quote:
Originally posted by kupan787
IBM to present info on 90 nm G5 PPC 970 at Feb. 2004 ISSCC meeting.

Original Japanese article & Babelfish translation

So it is going to be a bit longer than a few months before we see 90nm processors from IBM. And further, these 90nm parts will be 970's. What does this say? Perhaps the 3.0GHz processor will be the first on the 90nm process? If that is true, we might not see a 980/G6/whatever for a year+, as the 90nm 970+ would be able to probably scale quit well (at least to 4GHz I woudl imagine).

Based on how Apple has dramatically over-engineered the current G5 tower, I think it's a good guess that the next iteration of shipping G5 desktops will use the older fabbing process. The switch to 90mm will hopefully allow Jobs to deliver on his promise of dual 3GHz G5s for Summer 04.
post #20 of 39
Quote:
Originally posted by Outsider
Unfortunately there is little (none) official information on the 980.

AFAIK even the moniker "980" is unofficial at best but probably even non existant. It appeard the first time in a The Register-artichle if my memory serves me right, and their record of PowerPC reports are spotty at best (remember G5 reports from Motorola?) The only hard evidence of the successor to 970 that is readily available is this PDF in witch an IBM technician clearly uses the designations "GR-UL" and "97x" for this processor. For me.. there is no 980, only GR-UL or 97x. I for one expect the "x" to become a "5" when the design is official, ie PowerPC 975. But this is just me.

I really hope that the designation "980" would die. I consider any report from "insiders" concerning a PowerPC 980 fake. I'd really like to hear from the AI folks just why we should believe "980" when IBM them selves seem to use another designation.
post #21 of 39
G5+? I don't care what it's called...I'm just glad Apple has a reliable chip-maker that doesn't just sit around with a thumb up it's butt.
post #22 of 39
Quote:
Originally posted by Outsider
I meant SIMD unit and assumed it would be VMX. But I do recall there being mention of a SIMD unit. Must do research...

Apple won't use it if it doesn't have Altivec (VMX).
"It's not like Windows users don't have any power; I think they are happy with Windows, and that's an incredibly depressing thought." -Steve Jobs
Reply
"It's not like Windows users don't have any power; I think they are happy with Windows, and that's an incredibly depressing thought." -Steve Jobs
Reply
post #23 of 39
Quote:
Originally posted by discstickers
Apple won't use it if it doesn't have Altivec (VMX).

Why would Apple want to use the POWER5?
post #24 of 39
Quote:
Originally posted by Zapchud
Why would Apple want to use the POWER5?

Ah c'mon...you know he means a POWER5 derivative, not an actual POWER5.
post #25 of 39
Quote:
Originally posted by discstickers
Apple won't use it if it doesn't have Altivec (VMX).

Exactly, but we were referring to the POWER5, a chip Apple will most likely not use.
post #26 of 39
We will not see a "G6" until at least 2005 in my opinion. The new chip model numbers will be as significant as the different chip model numbers of the Motorola's....just more frequent.
I'm making plastics right now!
Reply
I'm making plastics right now!
Reply
post #27 of 39
Quote:
Originally posted by jouster
Ah c'mon...you know he means a POWER5 derivative, not an actual POWER5.

Yes, of course I assumed so, but the "it" we were talking about was the POWER5
post #28 of 39
I think Apple now have caught the high-end of the home computer market.

Like the Armari and BoXX - What they should do now is try and build specific machines for the high-end video market (£10,000 sort of range) built specificly for one purpose! Like a SGI sort of thing!

Hey just an Idea. What do yu think?
Love Macs to the Max
Reply
Love Macs to the Max
Reply
post #29 of 39
IBM started developing the 970 after the Power 4 was in production. It's my impression that they will be doing them in parallel from now on, because of Apple's commitment to use these chips and IBM's desire to use them in blade servers. We likely don't hear much about the Power5 derivative because Apple likes it that way. Lots of scenarios are possible. I'd like to see a mobile G5 developed and introduced when the mini-Power5 comes out, whatever they call it.
post #30 of 39
Quote:
Originally posted by wancarlos
Like the Armari and BoXX - What they should do now is try and build specific machines for the high-end video market (£10,000 sort of range) built specificly for one purpose! Like a SGI sort of thing!

Some of their high-end customers - AJA, for one - are lobbying Apple for just that sort of thing.

Given that Apple really wants the high-end video market, it'll be interesting to see how they respond.
"...within intervention's distance of the embassy." - CvB

Original music:
The Mayflies - Black earth Americana. Now on iTMS!
Becca Sutlive - Iowa Fried Rock 'n Roll - now on iTMS!
Reply
"...within intervention's distance of the embassy." - CvB

Original music:
The Mayflies - Black earth Americana. Now on iTMS!
Becca Sutlive - Iowa Fried Rock 'n Roll - now on iTMS!
Reply
post #31 of 39
They Already have one, it's called the G5!

Or if you are like me, I edit feature films on a 733Mhz G4
post #32 of 39
There has been some indications from IBM that there will be revisions of the 970 that lie somewhere between the 970 and the POwer5 derived chip. There is a very good possibility that the next generation may not be a Power5 based chip at all.

The pwoer5 based chip, what ever it is called at the time would become the basis for the G6. The G6 could very well mean a major revision to the motherboard. As such I don't think we will see the 970 based machines go away to soon.

That does not mean though that 970+ or 980 couldn't have significant enhancements. It is all a question of econmics and how fast Power5 derived hardware can be generated. Lets face it, it would not take much to enhance the 970 and generate significant pay offs. A larger cache for instance would do wonders as would and enhanced vector unit. Both of these enhancements can be handled without a major impact to the core.

Dave



Quote:
Originally posted by Addison
I don't see why not. It is the next generation, and IBM have acknowledged that by calling the design on which it is based the Power5, the 980 is a derivitave of the Power5.

Jumping from the G5 to the G6 in just over a year would show the world that Apple is on the move. Intel moved quickly from the Pentium to the Pentum II. The 980 based machine is clearly going to be a much more compattitive machine thatthe G5. The G5 is intouch buit isn't all conquring. The G6 just might really have that crown.
post #33 of 39
I'd like to see the next processor in the 970 family restore the missing "pseudo little-endian mode", the lack of which is the reason why Virtual PC doesn't run on the current G5 machines.

Of course, by time such a chip comes out, a new version of VPC that doesn't need PLEM could be here. If, however, the next version of VPC still uses PLEM when available (VPC will suck worse than it does now on a G4 if PLEM is totally scrapped -- a move I can see Microsoft making to "simplify product development and testing"), a G5/G6/G-whatever with PLEM will almost certainly run VPC significantly faster than it would without.
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #34 of 39
Remember, Power4 and Power5 are not standalone chips at all -- their power comes from being in the multi-chip modules. If the 980 (if it's even going to be called that) introduces dual-core (or more...but really unlikely) symmetric multithreading, then the G6 designation is completely warranted. But does it even matter a gosh-darn bit? NO! They don't even put "Power Mac" whatever on the actual machines anymore, so who cares?
"Be entirely tolerant or not at all; follow the good path or the evil one. To stand at the crossroads requires more strength than you possess."

"Ordinarily he was insane, but he had lucid moments...
Reply
"Be entirely tolerant or not at all; follow the good path or the evil one. To stand at the crossroads requires more strength than you possess."

"Ordinarily he was insane, but he had lucid moments...
Reply
post #35 of 39
Quote:
Originally posted by shetline
I'd like to see the next processor in the 970 family restore the missing "pseudo little-endian mode", the lack of which is the reason why Virtual PC doesn't run on the current G5 machines.

Of course, by time such a chip comes out, a new version of VPC that doesn't need PLEM could be here. If, however, the next version of VPC still uses PLEM when available (VPC will suck worse than it does now on a G4 if PLEM is totally scrapped -- a move I can see Microsoft making to "simplify product development and testing"), a G5/G6/G-whatever with PLEM will almost certainly run VPC significantly faster than it would without.

There are two levels of little-endian support in the PowerPC processor. The one that was removed from the 970 was a processor mode where all memory loads were automatically byte-swapped (except for the instructions). This is probably the mode used by VirtualPC.

The other feature, which is still in the 970, is a set of "load reversed" operations. These are approximately the same speed as the normal load instructions, but compilers typically can't generate them. Since an emulator is usually hand coded assembly (or JIT generated assembly) it shouldn't be a big deal to generate the load reversed instructions instead of the normal loads and it won't impact performance significantly. There is no doubt a lot of code that they have to change and test, but it should be perfectly doable.
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
post #36 of 39
Quote:
Originally posted by Amorph
Some of their high-end customers - AJA, for one - are lobbying Apple for just that sort of thing.

Given that Apple really wants the high-end video market, it'll be interesting to see how they respond.

... cue Avid shaking in their boots.

The days of proprietary DSP hardware doing all the work are coming to an end - so such a killer multi-core system would be mega-spiff .... however, what about the Grid option? (which Apple clearly also seems to be working on)

Hmmmmm ... lessee ... by the time a G5 Xserve cluster with Grid aware versions of FCP and Shake are available (probably the middle of next year) it'll be all over but the shouting.

either way ...

"Longhorn this Bill"
In life, as in chess, the moves that hurt the most, are the ones you didn't see ...
Reply
In life, as in chess, the moves that hurt the most, are the ones you didn't see ...
Reply
post #37 of 39
Quote:
Originally posted by tak1108
They Already have one, it's called the G5!

Or if you are like me, I edit feature films on a 733Mhz G4

I kick your butt. I edit on FCP 3 on a G4 Cube 450mhz 384mb of ram, 16mb of VRAM.

Back on topic. I don't think it would be smart for apple to brand the 980 (or whatever it ends up becoming) a G6. Having a newer generation processor in a portable opens up a whole world of problems, like what to do with the G5. Sure, put it in an iMac, eMac, new system...ect...but, than Apple will be forced to scrap the G5 tower they have now. Three words for that: REALLY bad idea. The new chip should be a G5, I see no reason for it not to be. I don't know all the technical stuff like a lot of ya'll obviously do, but from a marketing and sales standpoint...worst idea ever.
Come waste your time with me

In a world without doors or walls, there is no need for Gates or Windows
Reply
Come waste your time with me

In a world without doors or walls, there is no need for Gates or Windows
Reply
post #38 of 39
Quote:
Originally posted by Programmer
There are two levels of little-endian support in the PowerPC processor. The one that was removed from the 970 was a processor mode where all memory loads were automatically byte-swapped (except for the instructions). This is probably the mode used by VirtualPC.

The other feature, which is still in the 970, is a set of "load reversed" operations. These are approximately the same speed as the normal load instructions, but compilers typically can't generate them. Since an emulator is usually hand coded assembly (or JIT generated assembly) it shouldn't be a big deal to generate the load reversed instructions instead of the normal loads and it won't impact performance significantly. There is no doubt a lot of code that they have to change and test, but it should be perfectly doable.

Ah, good! I wonder if Microsoft has anyone working on VPC... or anyone who can.
post #39 of 39
I'm was for calling the G5:


The X1.
WILLYWALLOO'S: MostlyMacly: Rumors. Read about the timeline beyond our time.
PENFIFTEENPRODUCTIONS: We like what we do.
Reply
WILLYWALLOO'S: MostlyMacly: Rumors. Read about the timeline beyond our time.
PENFIFTEENPRODUCTIONS: We like what we do.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Will Apple dub the IBM PPC 980 chip the G6?